Google, Viacom now clashing over YouTube employee records
Update: at 9:05 p.m. PDT Saturday to include Viacom's response.
Viacom wants to know which videos YouTube employees have watched and uploaded to the site, and Google is refusing to provide that information, CNET News has learned.
This dispute is the reason the two companies, and lawyers representing a group of other copyright holders suing Google, have failed to reach a final agreement on anonymizing personal information belonging to YouTube users, according to two sources close to the situation.
As part of Viacom's $1 billion copyright suit against Google's YouTube, a federal judge ordered the video-sharing site two weeks ago to disclose records, such as IP addresses and usernames. Google was also supposed to turn over records that included the viewing and uploading histories of YouTube employees, according to the sources.
Since the judge issued the order, Viacom has been widely criticized for attempting to encroach on the privacy of YouTube users. The parent company of MTV and Comedy Central has always said it never wanted personally identifiable information.
"Viacom suggested the initiative to anonymize the data, and we have been prepared to accept anonymous information since day one," said a Viacom spokesman.
Critics dispute that and point out that records show the judge in the case only ordered YouTube to hand over information asked for by Viacom. As for the employee records, Google said Saturday that it isn't willing to talk about anything else until that matter of user privacy is resolved.
"Viacom and other plaintiffs never should have demanded private viewing data in the first place," a Google spokesman said in an e-mail. "They should have agreed a week ago to let us anonymize it. We are willing to discuss the disclosure of viewing activity of all the relevant parties. But the simple issue of protecting user information should be resolved now. Our users' privacy should not be held hostage to advance the plaintiffs' additional litigation interests."
According to the sources, Google and Viacom were close to reaching a deal last week about masking user data when Google backed out.

Google balked over the issue of turning over information that would include data about videos employees watched or uploaded to YouTube, according to the sources. If Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, uploaded a copyright video or viewed them, Viacom's lawyers believe they have a right to know about it, the sources said.
Google may have a tougher time with this issue than the fight to protect user information. Companies sue each other all the time and frequently turn over computer records belonging to employees when pertinent. Often, these records reveal e-mails, memos, and other documents that can shed light on events in question.
YouTube's employee information could prove crucial to Viacom's case against Google, as it could go a long way to proving how much knowledge YouTube has about piracy on the site. If YouTube employees knew what was uploaded to the site--or posted pirated clips themselves--YouTube could lose its protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
YouTube maintains that the video-sharing site is an Internet service provider and is protected by the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision, which removes liability from ISPs for illegal acts committed by users. But the DMCA requires that ISPs not have knowledge of the illegal acts or not be able to prevent them.
YouTube has always argued that it has no way to prevent users from uploading unauthorized copies of TV shows, movies, or other copyrighted material, and adheres to the DMCA by also removing infringing videos when notified by a copyright owner.
It's safe to say that many copyright owners are skeptical of these claims. For years, rumors have circulated in the technology sector that some of YouTube employees salted the site, especially in its early days, by posting clips from popular TV shows in order to bring attention to the site. No evidence of this has ever surfaced.
Google has been accused of encouraging massive copyright violations by Viacom and by a group of copyright holders represented by the Proskauer Rose law firm. The group includes the top soccer leagues in Britain and France, and U.S. television journalist Robert Tur.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET.




Am I right? Am I too far in understanding Viacom/RIAA/etc. lawyers?
I also notice that a totally unproven accusation (that Youtube employees, allegedly, knowingly allowed, and/or encouraged, copyright-infringement)... is actually being used to further justify an apparently, otherwise, clearly dubious-attack.
Can you say RED-HERRING..? But, you know how corporations work... once they start down a path, no matter how insanely-asinine, they will simply NEVER back-down (even if... it ends-up tearing them apart, and costing their stock-holders enormously).
The sooner you shills drop that tired argument the better.
I don't think Google really has any problem invading privacy of individuals, they are more than happy to do it in communist china when requested in order to gain market share.
Google, being young, is going to have to hire a team of lawyers in this area going forward. They blundered as rookies when they bought YouTube without considering the liability. In the long run, it will be one of many growing pains, but don't apologize for them. They gained from the stolen fruits of others and now need to comply with the law and settle the matter before they become too distracted from their core comepetencies, which is obviously not copyright law. Learn from Microsoft, the now have some of the best anti trust lawyers that money can buy on staff full time. Goggle will mature and have to have similar protecitve measures in place.
PS: To all of the idiots out there crying "theft!", perhaps you can enlighten us as to how exactly Viacom has been deprived of their original material. Unless someone broke into Viacom's film vaults and swiped the original tapes, it's called infringement, not theft. No, I do not condone either infringement or theft, but using bad terminology to press a point only makes you look ignorant.
/P
An earlier poster is right... maybe Viacom should be going after the user records to find out how many copyrighted clips were being uploaded by its own employees. This is just like the blind eye that Warner Bros. was taking in 2000 to all the employees it had using Napster. A colleague of mine even convinced the IT department to install a second hard drive for him. Its contents? Stolen music.
I suggest that all of you talking about Web 2.0 or whatever you want to call it that 'Old Media' companies get with it. Watch your steps kids. I've been inthe computer business for 40 years, have written my share of programs, paid for by the company I was writing it, and they were allowed to diseminate it since they bought it. Had they not paid me, then I would have had the basis for a lawsuit, copyright infringement, in spades.
Google is getting too big for its britches and needs to be taken to the woodshed. This lawsuit, which if anyone pays attention is by Viacom and 'Others', hopefully will do that to them. They are not too big to fail. Just ask Netscape, Excite and other browsers.
Viacom hs every riht to ask for that particular information, and Google has the same right taskor that company's. With that information in hand, a judge will be able to make a reasoned response. As long as Google decides it's too big to follow copyright law, it's fair game.
in the future when you are writing useless computer viruses simply so that you will have a chance to sue people, couldn't you just keep the programs to yourself? we don't need or want them. much less is it worth it to us to give up our freedom or privacy to gain them.
>>Had they not paid me, then I would have had the basis for a lawsuit,
wrong. had they paid you, then you would have had the ability to hire lawyers to harrass your competition and others. this is the basic problem: even people who disagree with what viacom is doing still support them financially by buying their product. why? it's completely useless. i refuse to even watch anything made by viacom because i don't want to give a market share of my brain to a crime syndicate who hates our freedoms.
viacom's position (or 'viacom and others' as it has begun calling itself) is that it releases a idea to the public then whines that the idea is disseminated. (there is no way to prevent this of course without taking away everyone else's freedoms.) our freedoms ought to be off limits. if viacom wants to keep its ideas to itself, let it. even worthwhile content wouldn't be worth losing our freedoms for; mtv and 'comedy' central certainly wouldn't be.
bravo youtube for giving us an alternative to television where we can see something other than viacom produced garbage.
-
by mnovickar
July 21, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
- I think that Viacom just wants to cresh the progression and the future of the internet and will lose to the future of the internet if they don't get with the new.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)Business news: http://www.chilipress.com/business.php